DUAL ACTIVE BRIDGE (DAB)

Students for a Democratic Society

The leading New Left group to emerge was the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). This was born from the youth wing of the Rockefeller-funded League for Industrial Democracy,[504] _{the Student}

League for Industrial Democracy (SLID).

According to Political Research Associates, itself a prominent Left- wing think tank, SLID was the US affiliate of an international socialist youth movement which received CIA money:

The LID’s Student League for Industrial Democracy (SLID) was an associate member of the CIA-financed International Union of

Socialist Youth.[505] _{SLID received funds to maintain its}

international contacts from the Foundation for Youth and Student Affairs, a major CIA conduit for funds.[506]

Discussing international students’ movements in the era of the Cold War, an article published by the European Students’ Union states that after World War II various national unions of students arose and the student movement combined into the International Union of Students (IUS), which included a dominant influence from the Soviet bloc. In 1950 the International Students’ Conference (ISC) was formed, comprising various national unions of students from Western states. ISC and National Union of Students (NUS) funding was investigated by a journalist from Leftist magazine Ramparts[507] _{and further revelations}

came from the New York Times . The European Students’ Union article states:

An important question was of course how these organisations were funded. The IUS was more or less openly funded by the various eastern European governments through their member NUSes, although it officially always claimed to be financially independent. No doubt a huge amount of money flowed through the IUS in order to keep the staff and finance the magazine. The ISC always criticised the IUS for being government controlled and boasted their own financial independence. However, compared with the situation of international NUS cooperations today, such as ESIB, it is almost unbelievable how much funds that were obtained by the ISC. Not only had they the means to fund an office with a staff of 50, but also to publish a magazine in colour which costed around USD 10,000 a year. The answer to this riddle was funding from various foundations, mainly in the USA and the UK. These foundations funded either the American NUS (National Student Association, NSA) or the British NUS, who in its turn financed the ISC. But why were these foundations ready to finance student unions with 100,000 dollars every year, and where did they get the money from in the first place? In 1967, a reporter, Sol Stern, from the magazine the Ramparts asked himself that very question.

After months of investigations the reporter came up with one startling answer: the whole of the ISC and the international department of the NSA was financed with black money by the American intelligence service the CIA.

In subsequent findings from other newspapers such as the New

York Times it turned out that the CIA had backed many non-

communist youth and student movements, such as the International Union of Socialist Youth and various labour unions. Generally, the CIA didn’t have direct influence in the workings of the organisations, but they felt that it was enough that there were non- communist alternatives on the world scene, even though some of these organisations, such as the ISC, were against the Vietnam War. The New York Times calculated that the CIA had backed the ISC with as much as USD 400,000 every year.

The revelation struck the ISC as a bomb. Only an inner circle within the NSA and the ISC were aware that the funding they got came from the CIA. When the magazine hit the streets, it became world news and the response was of course fury from the member NUSes. One by one, the NUSes left the ISC, and the money from the CIA-backed foundations stopped. In a very short period of time the Secretariat in Leiden closed down and the ISC ceased to function. NSA joined the IUS and several other west European NUSes followed suit. In the end the ISC was dissolved without any formalities — there wasn’t any money to organise a final congress.[508]

This CIA operation with student groups was directed by the omnipresent Cord Meyer, according to the New York Times . Philip Agee Jr., in a 1991 article in Campus Watch writes:

However, the ties between the CIA and the National Student Association may actually stretch back to 1950, when, according to

a New York Times interview with Frederic Delano Houghteling, then NSA secretary, the CIA gave him several thousand dollars to pay travelling expenses for a delegation of 12 representatives to a European international student conference.[509]

Agee states that the NSA provided an important basis for the New Left, and was closely associated with the ironically named Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the SDS: ‘[M]embers of Students for a Democratic Society provided important leadership for

campus-based activities.’[510] _{While the European Students Union}

article above comments that the CIA did not generally exercise direct influence over the student unions, Agee asserts that, ‘The CIA’s subsidies translated into influence over the policies and activities of the Association.’

According to Angus Johnston, who had been a secretary of the US Students Association, CIA funding of the NSA began in 1951 when the association was in financial difficulty. The funding continued for the next 15 years, until it was exposed by Ramparts magazine. Over the course of that time the NSA’s liberalism became more stridently Leftist, until it was supporting student sit-ins.

By the mid-sixties, many of NSA’s incoming officers were perturbed by the CIA relationship, but while they attempted to disentangle themselves from the agency, the association continued to request and receive CIA money.[511]

Johnston describes the role the NSA played in the militant New Left and the integral relationship between such primary New Left movements as the SDS and the SNCC:

NSA played a vital role in the wave of student activism that rose in the early 1960s, doing much to advance a student-centered vision for the American university. Many of the founders of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) became involved in national

activism through NSA, and thousands of students got their first glimpse of the civil rights and antiwar movements through NSA events. Although SNCC and SDS were often critical of NSA’s national leadership’s moderation, they relied on the association for volunteers, publicity, and national communication.[512]

One of those involved with founding the SDS, James Simon Kunen, states in his memoir The Strawberry Statement that Big Business channelled funds to the SDS as part of a dialectical process:

In the evening I went up to the University to check out a strategy meeting. A kid was giving a report on the SDS convention. He said that at the convention men from Business International

Roundtables, the meetings sponsored by Business International[513]

for their client groups and heads of government — tried to buy up a few radicals. These men are the world’s leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. These are the boys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They’re the left wing of the ruling class.

They agree with us on black control and student control . . .

They want McCarthy[514] _{in. They see fascism as the threat, see it}

coming from Wallace.[515] _{The only way McCarthy could win is if}

the crazies and young radicals act up and make Gene look more reasonable. They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago.[516]

We were also offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the centre as they move to the left.[517]

This Big Business involvement with the New Left is confirmed independently by another participant. Gerald Kirk, when a student at the University of Chicago, became active in the SDS, the DuBois

Club,[518] _{the Black Panthers, and the Communist Party as an FBI}

informant. Kirk broke from the Left in 1969. The following year, he testified before the House and Senate Internal Security panels:

Young people have no conception of the conspiracy’s strategy of pressure from above and pressure from below. . . . They have no idea that they are playing into the hands of the Establishment they claim to hate. The radicals think they’re fighting the forces of the super-rich, like Rockefeller and Ford, and they don’t realize that it is precisely such forces which are behind their own revolution, financing it, and using it for their own purposes. . . .[519]

In 1968 the SDS Columbia chapter instigated a student revolt and take- over of the University. Revolutionary leadership was soon taken out of the hands of the SDS and was taken over by the Students for a

Restructured University (SRU)[520] _{that had been funded with a $40,000}

grant from the Ford Foundation.[521] _{It is of interest to note that during}

the time the Ford Foundation was funding the New Left SRU during the Columbia University riots, McGeorge Bundy was the president of the Foundation, a position he held through 1966-1979. Bundy had several other significant credentials: at Yale University Bundy was initiated into Lodge 322.[522] _{In 1949 Bundy became a research fellow at the}

Council on Foreign Relations, and scholar-in-residence at the Carnegie Corporation, 1990-1996.[523] _{Under Bundy’s presidency when the New}

Left riots at universities were at their height the Ford Foundation 1968 annual report states that:

At the University of California (Berkeley), a grant of $500,000 was given for a new university Office of Educational Development that enlists both students and faculty in the planning and conduct of

educational experiments. These include new interdisciplinary

courses that reflect contemporary social, political, and economic issues, and a system of residential colleges linked to specific

student interests rather than to academic fields.[524]

What can be discerned in this statement is that the Foundation was funding in Berkeley, noted as the centre of New Left radicalism, the establishment of New Left radical ideology with which to inculcate students. Note the reference to ‘educational experiments,’ ‘courses that reflect contemporary social, political and economic issues,’ and the promotion of a system of so-called ‘specific student interests.’

The 1969 Foundation report states further:

To facilitate thoughtful student involvement in academic affairs, the Foundation granted $315,000 to the National Student Association for a three-year program. The grant will assist two principal activities: a national dissemination program to inform students of various patterns of educational innovation and change and participation of N.S.A. staff as advisors in student reform efforts.[525]

We have already noted that the NSA was also subsidised by the CIA as part of its Cold War era strategy of manipulating the Left against the USSR. The report continues:

At Columbia University, which was severely disrupted by student demonstrations in the spring, grants were made to three groups studying and redefining the roles of faculty, students, administrators, and trustees. They included a faculty committee and a student organization that was active in the demonstrations but is dedicated to restructuring, not overturning, the university.[526]

It is interesting that the Foundation report cryptically mentions ‘a student organization’ active in the New Left demonstrations with the SDS, Black Panthers, and others, referring here to the Students for a Restructured University, without naming the SRU as the recipient.

and even gained support among labour with a wildcat general strike in what became an anti-de Gaulle revolt. The revolt seriously undermined President Charles de Gaulle. The March 22 Movement, which spearheaded the revolt, was a mixture of Trotskyists and anarchists. Given the nature of the New Left, it is not surprising that the catalyst for the revolt was the puerile demand by students at Paris University at Nanterre under the direction of Daniel Cohn-Bendit, now a Green MP in the European Parliament, that male students be permitted entry to the female students’ dormitory. The Old Left of the French Communist Party suspected the motives of the revolt. Georges Marchais, who was to become General Secretary of the Communist Party, wrote an article entitled ‘False revolutionaries to be unmasked,’ stating that members of the March 22 Movement were ‘mostly sons of the grand bourgeois, contemptuous towards the students of working class origins [who would] quickly snuff out their revolutionary flames to become directors in Papa’s business . . .’[527]

The general impact of the 1968 revolt in France, with other riots in

Germany and Italy,[528] _{saw a permeation of New Left ideology into the}

mainstream. A writer on Wikipedia in an enthusiastic appraisal of the impact of the 1968 revolt writes that:

May 1968 was a political failure for the protesters, but it had an enormous social impact. In France, it is considered to be the watershed moment when a conservative moral ideal (religion, patriotism, respect for authority) shifted towards a more liberal moral ideal (equality, sexual liberation, human rights) that today better describes French society, in theory if not in practice. Although this change did not take place solely in this one month, the term mai 68 is used to refer to this general shift in principles, especially when referring to its most idealistic aspects.[529]

Georges Pompidou, premier under Charles de Gaulle who succeeded de Gaulle to the presidency, expressed the view that the 1968 revolt was

instigated by the US, because Gaullist France was pursuing a line independent of the US, and advocating a strong united Europe, while seeking an accord with the USSR.

Brzezinski, previously quoted at length on the dialectics of globalisation,[530] _{stated of the New Left that it was an infantile and}

irrational reaction, yet he also acknowledged that again from a dialectical perspective the New Left had its function:

The long-run historic function of the militant New Left depends largely on the circumstances in which it will eventually either fade or be suppressed. Though itself ideologically barren and politically futile, it might serve as an additional spur to social change, accelerating some reforms. If it does, even though the New Left itself disappears, its function in the third American revolution[531]

will have been positive; if not, it will have been a catalyst for a

more reactionary social response to the new dilemmas.[532]

The Ford, Rockefeller, and other foundations promoted much of what Brzezinski described as irrational and infantile, including psychedelia and the Marxian-Freudian sexual-revolutionary synthesis, as a catalyst for social change. There was no ‘reactionary social response’ that could not be easily dealt with by the Establishment, in the same manner that Senator McCarthy had been destroyed, and renegades like Barry Goldwater and George Wallace and more recently Patrick J. Buchanan and Ron Paul have been sidelined in their presidential bids. The foundations and the CIA sponsored extremists to make their own agendas seem ‘moderate.’ Therefore much of what was once regarded as morally abhorrent, such as widespread marijuana use, atonal music, psychotic art, and abortion is now mainstream in Western societies. The New Left of the 1960s and 1970s served its purpose, but a byproduct, feminism, continues in order to fulfil the purpose of ‘liberating’ women from children and family — Fromm’s ‘primary ties’ — to become fully integrated as economic serfs.

FEMINISM

Global capitalism and Marxism share a belief that it is far better to have women in the marketplace than in the home. The old Marxists — Marx, Engels and the others — wanted to bring down the traditional family, and move women out of the home and into the marketplace, to make them independent of the family. The global capitalists want the same thing. Women who live at home are not consuming or producing enough, they think. Global capitalism seeks to make everyone an employee, everyone a worker. There is a tremendous premium on bringing into the marketplace talented and capable women workers — who are more reliable in many cases — so that they can boost productivity and consume more goods.[533] _{(Patrick J. Buchanan)}

Feminism, a part of the New Left, was sponsored by the CIA and the World Controllers through their foundations. Feminism strikes at the foundations of the family and parenthood. The purpose is to destroy a basic social unit that is generally — in a traditional society — placed by most people in their loyalties before anything else, including work or state. In destroying the traditional concept of the family and parenthood, the collectivist aims to substitute the State for the family, work for home, and to ensure that children are raised in their values rather than the values of their parents.

Nicholas Rockefeller, a prominent scion of the oligarchic dynasty, stated to movie producer Aaron Russo that ‘the elite families created and financed the women’s lib movement so they could tax another half of the population and so that the children would be trained by them in government schools rather than in the context of the family unit.’[534]

Russo undertook an interview with Alex Jones on the latter’s national radio show. Russo was a successful movie producer with such stars as Bette Midler and Eddie Murphy and had been an influential music

promoter. Nicholas Rockefeller wished to sponsor Russo’s membership into the CFR, and promised that he would be part of the elite in a future ‘brave new world.’ We shall consider more of what Russo was told by Nicholas Rockefeller. For the purposes of this chapter however, it is enough to note that Nicholas identified feminism as part of the globalist agenda.

Marxism and the Family

We have seen the collectivist attitude toward the family laid down as long ago as Plato, and dramatised by Huxley. The family is considered by collectivists — whether of the capitalist or the socialist varieties — to be an obstacle in the way of both total obedience to the System, and as detracting women from their ‘equal rights’ as units in the production process. Bolshevism applied the collectivist theories on family on a major scale in its early years.[535]

Marx had written of the family:

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family based? On capital, on private gain . . . The bourgeois family will vanish when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish when capital vanishes. . . . Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.[536]

The arch-capitalists have their own dialectic that is the mirror-image of t he dialectics of Marx. In regard to the family, the global oligarchs hold that the family will vanish not when capital vanishes, but when

capital is absolute. The Marxist policy of replacing parenthood with

the State in the rearing of children has been proceeding in the capitalist West in the form of crèches, etc., including in communistic fashion crèches in the workplace.

Russia. Alexandra Kollontai was the USSR’s first Minister of Social